User talk:Canterbury Tail

Note for all users I shall make any replies to comments on my talk page here on my talk page. I feel this allows everyone to see a consistent conversation rather than one spread across multiple pages. Please make new comments at bottom of page.

Administrators' newsletter – March 2021

News and updates for administrators from the past month (February 2021).

Administrator changes

TJMSmith

Boing! said Zebedee • Hiberniantears • Lear's Fool • Only • WGFinley

Interface administrator changes

AmandaNP

Guideline and policy news

A request for comment is open that proposes a process for the community to revoke administrative permissions. This follows a 2019 RfC in favor of creating one such a policy.
A request for comment is in progress to remove F7 (invalid fair-use claim) subcriterion a, which covers immediate deletion of non-free media with invalid fair-use tags.
A request for comment seeks to grant page movers the delete-redirect userright, which allows moving a page over a single-revision redirect, regardless of that redirect's target. The full proposal is at Wikipedia:Page mover/delete-redirect.
A request for comment asks if sysops may place the General sanctions/Coronavirus disease 2019 editnotice template on pages in scope that do not have page-specific sanctions?
There is a discussion in progress concerning automatic protection of each day's featured article with Pending Changes protection.

Technical news

When blocking an IPv6 address with Twinkle, there is now a checkbox with the option to just block the /64 range. When doing so, you can still leave a block template on the initial, single IP address' talkpage.
When protecting a page with Twinkle, you can now add a note if doing so was in response to a request at WP:RfPP, and even link to the specific revision.
There have been a number of reported issues with Pending Changes. Most problems setting protection appear to have been resolved (phab:T273317) but other issues with autoaccepting edits persist (phab:T275322).

Arbitration

By motion, the discretionary sanctions originally authorized under the GamerGate case are now authorized under a new Gender and sexuality case, with sanctions authorized for all edits about, and all pages related to, any gender-related dispute or controversy and associated people. Sanctions issued under GamerGate are now considered Gender and sexuality sanctions.
The Kurds and Kurdistan case was closed, authorizing standard discretionary sanctions for the topics of Kurds and Kurdistan, broadly construed.

Miscellaneous

Following the 2021 Steward Elections, the following editors have been appointed as stewards: AmandaNP, Operator873, Stanglavine, Teles, and Wiki13.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:13, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Alien

I thought you reversion of my edit on Alien about R/GA has a production company was arrogant and controlling 86.14.189.55 (talk) 15:37, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ummmm, thanks? It’s not a production company, not listed in the credits as a production company so it doesn’t go in the info box as a production company. Canterbury Tail talk 15:43, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. R/GA were the production company for the title sequence, which is one of the most iconic in the history of film. Or as you suggested, they probably just made the tea and sandwiches 86.14.189.55 (talk) 16:11, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes but they were not the production company for the film, hence why they're not listed here (or anywhere) as the film's production company. Producing the title is no different to the company that does the special effects, they're a sub-contractor not the movie's production company. The only credited production company for the film is Brandywine under Twentieth Century Film Corp. Canterbury Tail talk 16:43, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You could have made that edit regarding the typeface, rather than just deleting it. I often come across people on wikipedia that act like they own articles -- which is against the spirit and rules of the platform. It is really sad. Maybe a reflection of the people who spend their time policing other's edits 86.14.189.55 (talk) 19:22, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well everything in main space should be referenced and verified. That was not a verifiable statement. I wouldn’t put it was probably something as that’s not a very encyclopaedic statement and I don’t think has any room here, it’s purely an opinion not a fact. Additionally the typeface used is pure trivia and not encyclopaedic. And I’m quite aware of the spirit of the platform. How do you expect someone to react when you come onto their user talk page calling them arrogant and controlling? Not exactly the comments of someone editing in good faith and trying to be cooperative. I should also note that you’re the one who keeps returning to my talk page to make non-good faith comments. Canterbury Tail talk 20:17, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I always edit in good faith. It is hard when faced with someone who just wants to delete and control other people's edits, and dictate what is added to an article. To someone who is interested in typefaces, that is very encyclopedic for one of the most iconic movie title. If you have good faith, maybe talk before just deleting... because that's what you think 86.14.189.55 (talk) 20:47, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note at no point have I ever suggested your edits were not made in good faith, and I always gave a reason for my edits. Please review WP:BRD. If you boldly add something, and someone reverts it, then it's incumbent on the person making the addition to take it to the talk page. Note I haven't reverted the current font edit, as it is sourced. Still not convinced it's encyclopaedic though but I'm open to see what others say. However yes I will remove unsourced information, and information and claims that are not supported by the source. And as for dictating what is in an article, that's what Wikipedia's policies and guidelines do, I do not own articles, no body does. Your initial edit that this whole section is talking about to add R/GA as the production company was clearly incorrect as they were not the production company for the film, despite having produced the title sequence, and it's quite acceptable to remove such an edit. Also be completely aware that once you make an edit, you lose control of the edit and any other user can come along and edit what you have just entered with good reason. I have given my reasons on multiple occasions. To edit Wikipedia you have to be comfortable with your edits being scrutinised by other editors, and potentially changed and reverted after you make them. Canterbury Tail talk 22:44, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. It is great to talk to an experienced editor that is always right. Have you ever considered why you have had so many people react poorly to your reversions and associated comments against the edits. Maybe you could consider viewing edits and adding qualifying sources, or flagging the edit as unsourced, and dropping a note on the editor's talk page. Only a suggestion 86.14.189.55 (talk) 12:13, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt that it will change your mind but I would have removed that trivia too, if I had seen it first. As would any experienced editor: it is you who is out of line with Wikipedia policy. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 12:49, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism visibility

Hi Canterbury, sorry to bother you but you're the only admin I could think of off the top of my head. Could you possibly do anything about the visibility of the two Personal Attack edits at RoboCop by the IP ending 184 that have been made today? THanks. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 19:07, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Try that. Canterbury Tail talk 19:12, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

what did i do

what did i do — Preceding unsigned comment added by PeaceLoverStephenTrue1111 (talk • contribs) 22:27, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously? You think this is an acceptable encyclopaedic edit? Canterbury Tail talk 23:29, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Can I kindly know in which way it was lik 'people magazine' type edit that you reverted today. I request you to visit the public Image section on Kate Winslet's wikipage. Fitzwilliams (talk) 06:42, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Again me. I respect your duty and support. But do consider the editings require much work. Who would better known than you? Anyway, I will republish the section if you have seen such things on Kate Winslet's wikipage as I requested. If you find that wrong to, then revert those too. Fitzwilliams (talk) 07:01, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No, please take it to the talk page of the article as per WP:BRD. You were bold, you were reverted, now it's time to discuss and the place to discuss the content is on the article's talk page. Also note that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS isn't generally considered a good reason to include something. Canterbury Tail talk 10:59, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As you know I am only 17 days old on Wikipedia so I learnt just know ho to operate the talk page. I have opened a new topic 'the public Image section' there on the talk page of the article. Please come here and discuss with me. Don't mind me. Fitzwilliams (talk) 12:08, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry if I come across as aggressive, it's not intentional. Just tired. And yes we can discuss on the appropriate talk page. Canterbury Tail talk 12:29, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You are very aggressive, little man. :( I just want to get along........ — Preceding unsigned comment added by PeaceLoverStephenTrue1111 (talk • contribs) 16:39, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

who are you?

Who are you? Are you an Admin? A criminal? A virgin? A whore? Let me get to know you. Why are you harassing me?

I'm not harassing you, you're editing a page on my watchlist with not very good edits and the other edit was violating some of our Manual of Style guidelines. And yes, I happen to be an admin as well. And your above comment could be considered a personal attack with some of those comments, so I'd suggest editing it. Also please read Competence is Required. Quite frankly at this point your edits are mostly of very poor quality and outright disruptive. Honestly, at this point you're on a fast track to being blocked from editing. Canterbury Tail talk 17:32, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As for the "very poor quality": I would consider it a euphemism. Some of the edits by PeaceLoverStephenTrue1111 are unambiguous trolling. When you look at the edit history, I think it's very likely that the user is a sock puppet of a former wikipedian who is possibly blocked from editing—some of the user's first edits were troll messages on my talk page (sending me a retarded cat etc.), without any apparent reason, so the user probably holds a grudge from the past.—J. M. (talk) 18:56, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I was being polite. :) Canterbury Tail talk 18:58, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hey pal...

	I'm sorry for being mean....
	I just want to be buds!! Lets be friends!!! Im sorry!!! I love you!!! :) PeaceLoverStephenTrue1111 (talk) 23:26, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I just want to kiss and make up!!! I'm truly sorry my friend!!! I wish we could cuddle!!! You have nice muscles!!!!